The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

Frankly, Homeforsummer, my 'sense' got numbed as pages in the thread passed.

It was numbed as you were putting finger to keyboard in your first post in this thread. None of us here have made it worse since.

If you had read my last post,

Give it a rest. Next time you use that phrase, without doing any of us here the benefit of responding directly to what we're actually writing rather than dismissing it with "I've told you this already", and I click the report button.

Your "you must all be ignoring me" attitude is getting serously tiresome now. Virtually every post you make now you're saying "if you'd read my previous post". It's completely disrespectful to those of us trying to have a discussion with you. Perhaps if you were having a proper discussion with us in the first place you'd not need to repeat the same dross in every post.

I had made it quite clear that if you guys are being 'funny' over the word freedom, Ill just use a different word. Read it.

We're not being "funny" over the word freedom. We're using it correctly.

And yes, please use a different word. You seem utterly incapable of using the existing ones in their correct sense.

3rd Paragraph: Yes it should be restricted. Not to facts, but to Opinions. To extremist opinions would be best. So yes, I know that my former statement to lock up people that are offensive wouldn't be allowed to be published, but so what? I'm happy to sacrifice that.

And you think others would be happy to sacrifice their opinions?

Not for the first time, you're applying your own logic to the entire rest of the world. It doesn't work that way.

Don't judge me or my sense, you don't know me. Thanks.

Frankly, based on the last several pages I'd not be surprised if any grief you've had in the past is to do with your attitude, and nothing to do with your sexuality.

 

[Villain]

You can't inherently include every Christian, every Jew and every Muslim in that statement.

You're making sweeping statements based on an assumption that everyone is the same.

I was just making a point about it being a little overboard for her to have a blanket "HATE" for homophobes.

Though I don't know Villain's style of debate, I would assume from what I do know that he meant that more in a sarcastic tone as those religions do seem to be the most opinionated about gay people.

👍

 

[photonrider]

I'll confirm that I saw where Villain was coming from too.

Sometimes it's who is saying it, not what is being said.

Never mind it's not what you say, but how one says it.

Gonales - I got the ski-wi joke. Since neither people nor bird was green, I had to place the fruit on wafers and send it ski-wiing down ice-cream. I'm still screaming.

 

[hogger129]

It's not a big deal to me. Whatever makes them happy.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I'm interested as to when gay rights becomes more prominent in Islamic countries. So far it's kept under wraps for the most part.

In India, though not Islamic, was really conservative when it came to personal relationships back in the day (like pre 90s). It was common for a Gay person to marry another person of another gender who was also sometimes gay, depending on the circumstances, to keep it from public and even family view.

 

[massradia1]

Would you apply the same to straight couples?[/B]

 

[Danny]

I'm interested as to when gay rights becomes more prominent in Islamic countries. So far it's kept under wraps for the most part.

So are the women.

 

[Gonales]

It was numbed as you were putting finger to keyboard in your first post in this thread. None of us here have made it worse since.

Yeah you have, since I have been giving the exact same explanations for pages now.

Give it a rest. Next time you use that phrase, without doing any of us here the benefit of responding directly to what we're actually writing rather than dismissing it with "I've told you this already", and I click the report button.

I've told you this already.

Your "you must all be ignoring me" attitude is getting seriously tiresome now. Virtually every post you make now you're saying "if you'd read my previous post". It's completely disrespectful to those of us trying to have a discussion with you. Perhaps if you were having a proper discussion with us in the first place you'd not need to repeat the same dross in every post.

I am the one having a proper discussion, but it seems that you don't want to. I've made 90% of the points I'm trying to make 10 pages ago.

We're not being "funny" over the word freedom. We're using it correctly.

And yes, please use a different word. You seem utterly incapable of using the existing ones in their correct sense.

Yes, I stated "Restiction on Speech" a couple of posts ago. Which obviously means the opposite of freedom, so it's 100% correct.

And you think others would be happy to sacrifice their opinions?
Not for the first time, you're applying your own logic to the entire rest of the world. It doesn't work that way.

It didn't HAVE to work that way if people would have had any sense of decency in this world. But seeing people can't actually do that sort of thing seeing it's 'just' people on the internet they are talking to...

Frankly, based on the last several pages I'd not be surprised if any grief you've had in the past is to do with your attitude, and nothing to do with your sexuality.

Do you know me? Do you KNOW why my attitude is like this? Really, don't judge those that have a different opinion just because it's an opinion.

So are the women.

You're so right, and things should change in these kind of countries, (and quite drastically imo.)

 

[sumbrownkid]

So are the women.

Touche!

@gonales: You know some women happen to like those garments. My mom did when we lived in Saudi. She said it was actually breezy, though I still can't figure out how wearing something black in the desert during the day can make it comfortable.

Edit: I personally think they like to think they are ninjas while wearing that black garb.

 

[Crash]

3rd Paragraph: Yes it should be restricted. Not to facts, but to Opinions. To extremist opinions would be best. So yes, I know that my former statement to lock up people that are offensive wouldn't be allowed to be published, but so what? I'm happy to sacrifice that.

Science still have not cracked what causes homosexuality. There are hypothesis out there, and scientists are still working on it. Since science has not demonstrated what causes homosexuality, does this mean that someone can ban speech saying homosexuality is natural? Their opinion and belief is that homosexuality is a choice, and that anything else is wrong.

With that said, your complaint that people using "gay" or "faggot" as derogatory comments to be rude is an opinion (one that many people on here actually agree with). However, it is still just an opinion, so by your logic, your opinion on this could be restricted by those who disagree with you.

Very nice try, but as stated before, such a thing is a fact. Not an opinion. Besides guys... Isn't it illegal to say the Holocaust didn't happen? First example of a limit to freedom of speech.

That is only true in some European countries.

And you'll find that many who believe in freedom of speech think that banning Holocaust denial is a bad law. Just because it's a law does not make it right. People should be allowed to have the discussion, and the crazies who deny the Holocaust will just be naturally marginalized by society.

I am the one having a proper discussion, but it seems that you don't want to. I've made 90% of the points I'm trying to make 10 pages ago.

You made your point that people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want because you find it to be "hurtful" or "offensive." You stated that there should be restriction on speech. People then, very patiently may I add, debated your assertions and opinions point by point. Instead of replying directly to the points, you've just been giving attitude and repeating yourself. Essentially putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA, I can't hear you!"

You're so right, and things should change in these kind of countries, (and quite drastically imo.)

You know, your opinion that women should gain additional rights in many Islamic countries is offensive to many in those countries. By your logic, you shouldn't have been allowed to say that opinion.

--

There is zero difference in learning how to tolerate gay from christian from funny bell bottom guy who wares socks with sandals(It comes from example not force).

Hey, stop making fun of people in Seattle, how dare you, that's offensive! OMG, your speech should have been banned!!1!one!

 

[Gonales]

Science still have not cracked what causes homosexuality. There are hypothesis out there, and scientists are still working on it. Since science has not demonstrated what causes homosexuality, does this mean that someone can ban speech saying homosexuality is natural? Their opinion and belief is that homosexuality is a choice, and that anything else is wrong.

Homosexuality is not a choice. I think every homosexual will tell you that as well tbh.

With that said, your complaint that people using "gay" or "faggot" as derogatory comments to be rude is an opinion (one that many people on here actually agree with). However, it is still just an opinion, so by your logic, your opinion on this could be restricted by those who disagree with you.

No, the word gay doesn't have to be a bad word. If used to express negativity, then it is. Faggot is the same, although it's most likely to be used in a negative manner anyway.

That is only true in some European countries.

And you'll find that many who believe in freedom of speech think that banning Holocaust denial is a bad law. Just because it's a law does not make it right. People should be allowed to have the discussion, and the crazies who deny the Holocaust will just be naturally marginalized by society.

I think it's a great law. And people that are really really in favor of having free speech... I can only say I wish them all the best. I will never agree with it.

You made your point that people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want because you find it to be "hurtful" or "offensive." You stated that there should be restriction on speech. People then, very patiently may I add, debated your assertions and opinions point by point. Instead of replying directly to the points, you've just been giving attitude and repeating yourself. Essentially putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA, I can't hear you!"

Wrong, I've replied over pages long, to this subject. People keep bringing up the same arguments over and over though. So, in the end I did indeed get tired of it.

You know, your opinion that women should gain additional rights in many Islamic countries is offensive to many in those countries. By your logic, you shouldn't have been allowed to say that opinion.

Yeah, it's offensive to the men that are in control at this moment. But do you really think women should be suppressed?

 

[Tornado]

Do you know me? Do you KNOW why my attitude is like this? Really, don't judge those that have a different opinion just because it's an opinion.

You keep saying this as if you think that should justify your attitude all by itself. As homeforsummer implied above, no one really cares why you feel the correct reaction to being offended is to suppress rights.

Wrong, I've replied over pages long, to this subject. People keep bringing up the same arguments over and over though.

Probably has something to do with you repeating your hypocrisy (over and over) in response to those arguments.

Yeah, it's offensive to the men that are in control at this moment. But do you really think women should be suppressed?

It's completely irrelevant what I think, since it's a logical comparison. Those men really think that women should be oppressed, and according to you (over and over) might makes right, so it's perfectly acceptable for them to be oppressed. Can't let the men who make the rules be offended, after all.

 

[FoolKiller]

And people that are really really in favor of having free speech... I can only say I wish them all the best. I will never agree with it.

Just so it is completely clear, it is not just about freedom of speech.

It is about

Maybe that means little to you. Maybe you don't understand how your wishes could backfire on you. But some of us have family that went halfway around the world and risked and/or gave their lives for that concept William Wallace was screaming about in order to be sure that it was available to people they never met or knew.

Yeah, it's offensive to the men that are in control at this moment. But do you really think women should be suppressed?

So you recognize that suppressing free speech can be used by people with the "wrong" opinion?

If your society is as bad and hateful as you claim, do you want that kind of power given to the vote of the majority?

 

[McLaren]

We could do with less sarcasm in this thread, like I stated before. Sarcasm always has a negative impact on discussions.

No, not always. Sarcasm is actually sometimes a rather clever way to drive a point home or attempt to show when someone is making a rather irrational statement.

Which is what he did.

 

[photonrider]

........................................ She said it was actually breezy, though I still can't figure out how wearing something black in the desert during the day can make it comfortable.

Edit: I personally think they like to think they are ninjas while wearing that black garb.

Having lived in the ME for some time as an ex-pat, I can tell you that quite often I wished I was dressed like that. Well, not what the women wore, but in the usual thobe that men wore - some called it a kandura in the region I lived.
This was the perfect garment to keep cool and dry and safe from the khamsin. Almost like walking around with your own personal tent. I used to envy them, as I ran around in plaid shirts and jeans, not the best protection from the elements over there.

As for homosexuality in terms of locality and religion - what can be expressed is only expressed within the confines of what is acceptable. I've seen it exist over there - but not flamboyantly - it's very low-key. That was twenty years or more ago, though. Things may have changed.

I guess, the sumbrownkid, and other Muslims will know better for sure, since they can view it from within.

 

[Maccer_42]

Science still have not cracked what causes homosexuality. There are hypothesis out there, and scientists are still working on it.

Homosexuality is not a choice. I think every homosexual will tell you that as well tbh.

Could we change the subject to talk about this? Gay people will often say "I was born gay" and while I agree it isn't a 'choice', I still find it a confusing thing to hear as personally I wouldn't say I was born straight, to me it would feel like a lie to state that. I feel my sexual preferance developed through puberty and before puberty I wouldn't have said I was straight or gay, my sexual preferance as a child was non existant. I became straight I wasn't born straight just as I think gay people become gay not born gay. What I think decided my sexual preferance was the way I was raised and subconcious influences from my family and possibly friends too as I grew up.

Now i'm not saying that having hetrosexual parents equals having a straight child or that if gay parents adopt a child it will grow up gay, as there is plenty of evidence to prove that doesn't happen. I just think that the way we are raised and subconcious infuances play a major role. Also I don't feel there is a set of "rules" in the way child is raised that will determain their sexuality as everyones brain reacts differently to everything. I think even small seemingly insignificant events during childhood could play a role in determaining sexuality.

Am interested to hear other opinions on this subject.

 

[Minty]

"Born to be gay", then?

It may not be something that really comes into play until around puberty, but I'm fairly convinced that it's a genetic thing. Outside influence will decide how someone acts on an attraction one way or the other, or even whether a person ever discovers that attraction. I mean, I only really realized I was gay a little under 6 months ago. About 2 weeks after I ended up falling in love with another guy, and only then did I even bother to explore any kind of physical attraction to guys. Started exploring the feelings and kind of...discovered that I have an attraction to men. Just never really bothered to think about it because I'm also attracted to girls and just kinda figured that was good enough. It's just that I was never really exposed to anything that might have indicated to me that I was gay. And the few times I was I just thought to myself "I like women too much to like men" and just ignored it; again, up until about 6 months ago when I had a reason to consider it.

Which kind of explained my strange fascination with any movie staring Daniel Craig before I'd even given it serious thought.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Isn't their reported cases of homosexual behavior within the animal kingdom? That at least gives some biological credence to homosexuality being ingrained since birth instead of being a life choice.

 

[FoolKiller]

Nature vs nurture. To point at just one and say that is it is likely folly. Sexual inclinations, and attraction in general are definitely affected by the events around us. You can see it in many places from people marrying spouses just like one of their parents to things like sexually molested children becoming sexual predators as adults (not always but there is a vicious cycle there). Yet, people also may have attractions to things that zero influence can be attributed to. No one can explain why a certain hairstyle or smell of a certain perfume/cologne can draw your attention or turn you off.

And these things can go into activities we enjoy, foods we like, etc. So to say homosexuality is completely genetic or completely influenced is showing a great disregard to the human condition. It could be just a genetic trigger that sits dormant until puberty, but we have no verified evidence to date and so the best option is to assume that it is like most things in our personalities, a combination of nature and nurture.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

From what I understand, you are born with a certain sexuality already engraved in you from when you are born, whether it would be asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or even homosexual. For this reason I feel it should be legal.

To everybody who denies it because it is a sin against God, we don't judge. God judges other people, and we should have no say in what other people like to do as long as it doesn't harm us drastically.

 

[Daniel]

From what I understand, you are born with a certain sexuality already engraved in you from when you are born, whether it would be asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or even homosexual. For this reason I feel it should be legal.

Adding onto this, people might believe that it's a choice since there are cases of husbands coming out of the closet after years of marriage or suddenly turning gay after a stroke. Whereas for the former, the husband could have been gay from the very start yet went with the expectations of society (i.e. marrying someone from the opposite sex) and never 'experienced' a homosexual relationship.

IMO for the latter, it supports the born-with-it theory. It's not uncommon to see a change in personality after a stroke. And since a stroke directly affects the brain, it could affect the region that (for lack of a better term) 'selects' the orientation.

Which kind of explained my strange fascination with any movie staring Daniel Craig before I'd even given it serious thought.

That's kinda the same for me and Robert Downey Jnr. Although there's something wrong with you if you don't love him, no matter what team you swing for

 

[homeforsummer]

Do you know me? Do you KNOW why my attitude is like this? Really, don't judge those that have a different opinion just because it's an opinion.

I don't need to know you. This forum is a shop window for your thoughts, ideas and attitudes. Everything you write is a reflection of your personality. If you want respect in general - regardless of sexuality - then it makes sense to start with how you write your responses on this forum.

And regardless:

We know what your point is. You want certain words purged from daily conversation because you find them offensive. Yes, we realise that you're (now) aware that restricting words cannot be considered freedom of speech. Yes, you've (now) acknowledged that you're describing restriction of speech.

But the bit you still don't seem to get is that restrictions on speech because you find them offensive is the start of a slippery slope.

Start banning words because some people find them offensive, and it opens the floodgates for other things to be banned.

If you value your right to the freedom to explore your sexuality, you have to understand that you must value other people's rights to do or say the things they want to do or say. If you don't value someone else's rights, why should someone value yours? You don't even need to be religious to appreciate the concept "do unto others as you wish to be done unto you".

 

[Gonales]

But the bit you still don't seem to get is that restrictions on speech because you find them offensive is the start of a slippery slope.

Start banning words because some people find them offensive, and it opens the floodgates for other things to be banned.

If you value your right to the freedom to explore your sexuality, you have to understand that you must value other people's rights to do or say the things they want to do or say. If you don't value someone else's rights, why should someone value yours? You don't even need to be religious to appreciate the concept "do unto others as you wish to be done unto you".

This is where I think you guys go overboard. Just because 1 thing gets banned doesn't mean everything does. Like I said, there are already a couple of things banned from speech as it is. So don't exaggerate.

 

[arora]

This is where I think you guys go overboard. Just because 1 thing gets banned doesn't mean everything does. Like I said, there are already a couple of things banned from speech as it is. So don't exaggerate.

Quite wrong, one word used out of context while playing a video game you think warrants jail. You are not the only one that hears this word or that that they find offensive.

Anyway, for the others to consider because I know everyone loves me quoting old ass dudes in wigs and nickers.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

 

[Gonales]

Quite wrong, one word used out of context while playing a video game you think warrants jail. You are not the only one that hears this word or that that they find offensive.

Anyway, for the others to consider because I know everyone loves me quoting old ass dudes in wigs and nickers.

I already said, so many times, stop talking about the jail 🤬. I never said I'd throw someone in jail for calling someone a faggot. IF you wanna use things you heard use them correctly.

And America as an example towards Europe? I doubt it. Really do.

 

[arora]

I already said, so many times, stop talking about the jail 🤬. I never said I'd throw someone in jail for calling someone a faggot. IF you wanna use things you heard use them correctly.

So you want a law with no penalty now? Cool 👍

 

[Tesla]

I already said, so many times, stop talking about the jail 🤬. I never said I'd throw someone in jail for calling someone a faggot. IF you wanna use things you heard use them correctly.

And America as an example towards Europe? I doubt it. Really do.

And now you're avoiding the swear censor. Funny that.

America is a great example to the world regarding the freedom of speech. Have you looked at Germany? You aren't free to choose your own political party, you can't approve of crimes (which means if I was saying this in Germany I would be breaking the law), and you can't insult people. Are you saying you can't see any issue with this at all?

 

[Gonales]

So you want a law with no penalty now? Cool 👍

I'm not sure, that's why I am asking... Are you stupid? Just wondering. Considering the last time I checked, a law does NOW always have a punishment that's going to jail. :/ How about a speeding ticket? You'd go to jail for that?

And now you're avoiding the swear censor. Funny that.

America is a great example to the world regarding the freedom of speech. Have you looked at Germany? You aren't free to choose your own political party, you can't approve of crimes (which means if I was saying this in Germany I would be breaking the law), and you can't insult people. Are you saying you can't see any issue with this at all?

No I'm not. You should check WHO edits a message next time. Plus, I live in Germany, and I think it's lots and lots better than America. Thanks to Obama, America isn't a total disaster. (Yet.)

 

[arora]

Yup, I iz stoopid.

So all that Romney and such..... ah well.

 

[homeforsummer]

This is where I think you guys go overboard. Just because 1 thing gets banned doesn't mean everything does. Like I said, there are already a couple of things banned from speech as it is. So don't exaggerate.

I'm not exaggerating: You just have to consider the possibility.

You may think that something that offends you is more serious than something else that offends somebody else. Which is understandable - it's human nature to feel rather more strongly about your own issues than those of someone else.

But it's the principle of it, more than the reality. On principle, you shouldn't wish to take away others' freedom to do something (even if you find it offensive) if you don't wish for your own freedoms to be taken away. It's a simple case of putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

Like I mentioned earlier - it's better pushing for better education on homosexuality (and other issues), than it is to simply remove words from peoples' vocabulary on the off-chance they can be used offensively.

Incidentally, what other words are banned from speech? I can't think of any...